What was pre-Christian Europe like? We don't really know - I don't. I don't know how the people lived; how they thought, how they socialized, how their families were, what they believed; I do wish to know.

There are a few vestiges of those cultures, somewhat obvious, that lasted into at least the Nineteenth Century, which I can pick up in parts.

I would believe that the Chivalry of the Middle Ages, however criticized, must date back to that earlier Europe, had I more reason to, rather than my own speculation. Was it part of some warrior code, to some gods or god?

There also must have been some writing from the time which had survived, I would think. The Nibelungenlied and Beowulf, I think, weren't Christian stories - they were written, re-written, I think, during Christians by Europeans - indicating, perhaps, some culture worth thinking about - as opposed to what many would say, as many of us know, in most colleges or universities.

The hunter was appreciated; the forests were preserved. I only ask about culture - religion aside.

Well, as far as Northern culture goes (such as Germanic, Scandinavian, etc) you could check out the following texts.

- The Havamal - sayings of Odin... gives you an idea of the moral ideas of our ancestors. I find it very interesting how so many moral ideas evident in the Havamal are still with us today. It is almost as if Christianity changed to suit us, back in the day, rather than we to suit it. Both our people and Christianity changed, of course, but it seems that we didn't lose our nature because of it.

- The Poetic Edda - collection of stories of our ancient ancestors

- The Prose Edda - more of the same.

- Conquest of Gaul, Caesar. His writtings, he wrote on the culture and practices of the people of that area, but keep in mind that it was, in part, a propaganda work to elevate his status among the Romans, so some of it may be exagerated or inflated. But it's considered a record of the practices of those people.

- The Agricola and The Germania, by Tacitus - In Agricola, Tacitus wrote a detailed account of live in the British Isles. In Germania, Tacitus wrote of the life and customs of the German tribes.

These were contemporary works, so they are quite valuable in that sense.

There are many more books written by historians which offer insight as well, but I suppose what you are looking for are more contemporary things.

As for the Nibelungenlied and Beowulf, these were written down by Christian monks for the most part, as well as the prose and poetic eddas. While the northerners had a writting system, the runes, for some reason they didn't use them for anything other than simple things, such as marking a sword with your name. "This sword belongs to Olaf." Etc. There were no books or history books commited to written form. This was left to the Christian monks to do - unfortunately, they could not write down enough.

Definately check out The Thinker's reading list. I would also check out "The Early Germans" by Todd. But beware of all primary sources as The Thinker points out; they can be worse than our modern Marxist historians if one does not read in between the lines!

Beowulf, like most of our history, is oral in origin. So many, perhaps hundreds of years passed before it was finally drafted onto paper. One belief is that 3 writers, seperated by time and location, essentially cooperated for the final version we read today, each using their predecessor(s) as "guides" if you will. Beowulf, in its finalized and essentially hundered thousandth dictation, is the PERFECT example of how christianity was being introduced to pagan culture.

I am confused about your question on chivalry though. For origins of chivalry and the courtly ideal one must turn to gnosticism, dualism, Zoroastrianism, and above all, Manichaeism. The concepts and practices of chivalry were well in place before the middle ages. It was the middle ages, however, that placed what essentially was (in my opinion) the courtly ideal (or counter to christianity as I prefer..lol) onto the throne of society (sorry). Behind the facade of romance and traditional chivalric practices....ie: saving the damsel in distress, lurked the beautiful anti-christian and extremely dualistic nature of chivalry/the courtly ideal, which has been part of our culture since the beginning (agian, in my opinion). I do believe you can make an argument for a "warrior code" within chivalry as well, even though I personally believe Love is the focus in the discussion of chivalry; branching into religion, society, politics, etc...

Asking what pre-Christian Europe was like is a lot like asking what Christian Europe was like. It depends on the time, place, and social segment. Especially considering Christianity unified and homogenized Europe in some ways (in general terms, such as religious beliefs, practices, and even language), pre-Christian Europe must have had less similarities than it did during the Christian era.

Ancient Greek? What era? Ancient Rome? What period? Nordic Europe? Whereabouts? You see, it can get very difficult asking it like this. In the Baltic states, Latvia I believe, there are still a couple of Pagan groups remaining who have not converted to Christianity. I cannot provide much more information than this, but if you're interested, it might be helpful to see how these people live and what they believe.

I think that you're right -- pre-Christian folklore and beliefs will invariably infused with that of the Christian age. Even aside from the obvious adoption of pagan rites, dates of festivals, and basic beliefs (which are very numerous), there is a lot of 'pagan' influence. Look at it this way; Paganism is basically an expression of a deeper Spirit or collective racial unconscious. The beliefs, rituals, social structures are the impetus and 'pagan societies' the result. And while Christian society might have reduced and eliminated (elimination of Pagan influence wasn't possible, but reduce, certainly) paganistic traditions of Europe, that same Spirit invariably exists. And since Christianity is a highly personalized and evolutionary creed, the same Spirit which produced paganism was necessarily used to create the Christian synthesis. (I think the fairly limited role the Bible has played in developing Christian theology -- ie, as more or less influential as opposed to authoritative, coupled with its contradictions in areas -- allowed for this European spirit to be incorporated into the religion. Contrast this with Islam which had an established dogma, inconclastic fervour and infallible book from the beginning; ie, the religion was complete before it had 2 converts.)

For example, Christian folklore such as Tristan and Iseult and King Arthur probably were a result of an evolution in the folk-mind. The Christian beliefs were a filter perhaps that created a slightly different but very much similar product. I can't remember for sure, but I somewhat recall even a Christian reference in the Tain Bo Cualagne, when indeed this was a thorughly pre-Christian myth/folk tale. It was, of course, written down and re-told during Christian times. The Christian influences did not change entirely the pagan story. This should be true for almost all of the literature, culture, music, etc. of Europe. Introduction of Christianity did not make Europe suddenly un-European. The Aryan Spirit was merely expressed within a different religious view point (though in form and basic belief, quite similar.)

I suppose my advice would be to narrow your pursuit a little. Then, remember that Christian Europe would have reflected many aspects of Pagan Europe.

I am confused about your question on chivalry though. For origins of chivalry and the courtly ideal one must turn to gnosticism, dualism, Zoroastrianism, and above all, Manichaeism. The concepts and practices of chivalry were well in place before the middle ages. It was the middle ages, however, that placed what essentially was (in my opinion) the courtly ideal (or counter to christianity as I prefer..lol) onto the throne of society (sorry). Behind the facade of romance and traditional chivalric practices....ie: saving the damsel in distress, lurked the beautiful anti-christian and extremely dualistic nature of chivalry/the courtly ideal, which has been part of our culture since the beginning (agian, in my opinion). I do believe you can make an argument for a "warrior code" within chivalry as well, even though I personally believe Love is the focus in the discussion of chivalry; branching into religion, society, politics, etc...

Interesting. The Chivalric Code was intensely Christian in many, many ways, you must agree, in at least superficial ways. The Crusades was indeed a Christian campaign (Cruces signatti - in the sign of the Cross), and the Crusades was an expression of Chivalric impulses. Moreover, there was more to the Chivalric code than simply love -- duty and service, [etc., etc.] which I would argue are (but perhaps not exclusively) Christian.

I would like to hear more about how the courtly-love is dualistic and anti-Christian? What about the ideals of the court that are Christian. I'm a little confused with what you say, but I would also like you to expand on it.

In my opinion, the notions of courtly love are the product of Christianity. Whereas you see it as a product of a rebellion against Christianity, I think Christianity was entirely responsible for the Romances of the Middle Ages. I do entirely agree that there was a rebellious spirit to it all, but not in an anti-Christian sense. I think perhaps anti-Church at best, but definitely pro-Christian (I do not think there would have even been the a question about God or Christ in the medieval mind, to be honest).

Christianity introduced notions of higher love, of agape. This was devotional love. It was reflective of the love of/for Christ in personal relationships. More over, it was also a result of the individualism (in love and other respects) that Christianity brought. Before Christianity, 'Romances' did not exist and notions of love were different. There were ideas about service, loyalty, and so forth, but marriage was still not at all considered in terms of love until the Christian era. And when relationships were personalized outside of duty and loyalty (in literature and mythology, for the most part) it had a dominating sexual/lustful/passionate tone to it. I think the individualism of Christianity -- in terms of 'love' as a personal experience between two persons -- was the real impetus for the literature of this period, and the reason why it is so centered around Romantic love.

I would like to write more, but I would like to hear what you have to say and clarify/expand your points before. also, I got to go.

By the way, what about Christianity is anti-dualistic? Manichaeism and gnosticism were influences on early Christianity, and I would say Zoroastrianism in an indirect way was also an influence. Zoroastrianism is quite similar to Christianity. The cult of Mithra ( a Persian cult born from the same religious convictions as Zoroastrianism) is extremely similar to Christianity. Heaven vs. Hell, Light vs. Darkness, End Judgment and Apocalyptic Battle of Good and Evil, even the same Satan (borrowed from Zoroastrianism Shatin; all are present in Christianity.

I do not believe christianity is anti-dualistic, I agree with you.
Chivalry of course, was at first, primarily dealing with the pursuit of arms and a code among warriors, predominantly on the horse. I also never meant to say christianity was anti-dualistic. I apologize if that was the perception. I completely agree with your final paragraph.

I am saying that while chivalry and courtly love were essentially christian in nature, the practice was certainly "non-christian." I do not think anyone in the court, outside of a few exceptions, consciously knew their actions were anti-christian. Even the followers of the manichaean and gnostic faiths believed they were upholding strict christian fundamentals. So I also agree that those among the court were, or believed they were, living up to and practicing christian standards.

I do not agree, however, that the "individualism of christianity...was the real impetus for the literature of this period." Christianity was also not responsible for the invention of a "love" experienced in marriage. To think love inside of marriage was not possible or hadn't occurred until the advent of christianity is ludricous.

In courtly love, a man passionately devoted himself to a lady who was married or engaged with another man. Because medieval marriages were essentially business contracts, courtly love functioned as the only "true romance" for many. Even the men who had taken women as wifes, or partners, knew of the intentions of the other men of the court-practicing "chivalry" and pursuing "courtly" love. By stressing this a knight would perform his chivalric actions, even in the strictest christian sense, and yet still devote himself to a taken woman. Courtly love's influence was undeniable despite the fact its ideals ran counter to the christians ideals of chivalry: namely decption, fratricide (among pledged brothers), adultery, obtainment of physical bliss. (denying the spiritual/light, for pleasures ill-gotten of the flesh/matter), etc...

Troubadours and Trouveres manifested these latently anti-christian ideals in song and poetry. (ironically practicing the accepted court ethics). Tristan- by von Strassbourg is the perfect example of courtly love and how completely anti-christian under the surface it was. The work was actually much criticized by the clergy for its obvious undertones which triumphed anti-christian beliefs.

The ideals of Manichaeism all but died with the religious wars that ended in the defeat of the Albigenses. However, with the Albigenses, the Paulicians, Bogomils and their dualistic "heresies" had permeated the court and the clergy. Even Augustine was a manichaeist for nine years before his conversion.

We see in the writings by the troubadours and trouveres, the ideals of chivalry and courtly love being expressed in a new variation of the dualism in manichaeism and christianity. The concept of the "obstacle" to overcome in order to find Light, Love, and Divinty is prevalent in most of their works. Yet this "obstacle" (which we can apply to anything today) is material in nature. This is a long debate however and I have written too much now.

So i guess to sum up. Chivalry nor courtly love were on the surface anti-christian. Their roots and practices were entirely christian in nature. However, these practices were a facade for anti-christian tendencies/instincts if you will of a court that thrived on christian ideals but gorged itself on the "fun" underbelly.

So, if we have anything to take from this thread, what were the major attitudes and beliefs, considering things such as the individual's relationship with the group, one's relationship to the family, the government's relationship with its governed, the government's relationship with 'the gods' - morality, of the pre-Christian Slavs, Germans, and Celts, if possible?